JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 1886 of 2019 : Anoop Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, by which the said claim petition preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 04.09.2019 was dismissed, instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. The facts leading to the instant appeal, in a nutshell, are as under :

Initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Commercial Tax Officer in the year 2002. Later on, his post was designated as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax and while working as such, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.10.2018 on the ground of alleged irregularities committed by him while passing tax assessment order in regard to M/s Shashi Sales, Lucknow for the assessment year 2014-15. A charge-sheet dated 22.10.2018 was served upon the petitioner, levelling seven charges against him. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax Officer’s Training Institute, Lucknow was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who, after completion of enquiry, submitted its report dated 22.01.2009, wherein it has been stated that charge nos. 5 and 6 levelled against the petitioner was not proved, whereas charge nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 were proved and charge no.3 was partly proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority had issued a show cause notice dated 12.02.2019 to the petitioner along with the copy of the enquiry report dated 22.01.2019, to which the petitioner had submitted his reply. After that the Disciplinary Authority had passed the punishment order dated 04.09.2019, withholding three increments with cumulative effect and a censure entry.

3. Against the aforesaid punishment order dated 04.09.2019, the petitioner has preferred claim petition No. 1886 of 2019 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 22.10.2020. Feeling aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard Shri Rishi Raj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhiyudya Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as material brought on record.

5. Challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the Tribunal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that on the basis of any tax assessment order, the concerned tax assessment officer cannot be punished as he performed the quasi judicial function. He further argued that if there is any objection against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the appeal can be filed before the appellate authority against that said assessment order. He further argued that against the order of assessment dated 20.09.2018 passed by the petitioner, the trader had filed first appeal before the appellate authority, which was allowed by the appellate authority and quashed the assessment order dated 20.09.2018 and remanded the matter to the assessing officer for re-assessment of the tax liability vide order dated 05.10.2018, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.12 to the writ petition.

6. Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that on the basis of passing any tax assessment order, the concerned officer cannot be punished as he performed the quasi judicial function while passing the assessment order and if any negligence is being committed, he shall not be inflicted with the major punishment in the manner as the petitioner has been subjected to. His submission is that the Tribunal, without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, erred in dismissing the claim petition preferred by the petitioner.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has next argued that the departmental proceedings have been concluded against the petitioner in violation of pri